/lit/ - Literature

>>4207660
u've had an improper reading of the bible

>>4207660
The Bible was all written by one author, just as /lit/ is all one person. Right?

most of that Shit was added in the king james edition w/ purposely misleading translation

>>4207663
Dante then too had improper reading of the bible

>>4207664
The Bible is the holy word of God.

>>4207677
It is a collection of texts by various authors, some divinely inspired and some not.

>>4207668
he did, that's well documented (c.f the entire divine comedy), what's your point?

>>4207680
My point was really obvious. Me and Dante think God sends fags to hell.

>>4207660
homos can be stupid too, stupidity is universal.

>>4207694
Are you calling Wittgenstein a stupid homo?

It's called Protestantism, the idea that you can interpret the Bible as you please.

>>4207687
but dante (and you by extension) had an improper reading of the bible, so why are you thinking of him as an authority in the subject?

>>4207680
>he did, that's well documented
You mean it was well established that God doesn't send fags to hell?

>>4207717
no, it's well-documented he had an improper reading of the bible.

All christians ignore all parts of the Bible they dont like.

* tips fedora non-ironically *

>>4207717
http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/

here's a cool link.

>>4207721
Who decides what's a proper reading of the Bible?

>>4207732
no one in particular, but it's easy to spot an improper reading. in Dante's case it's more like he just imprinted his own personal mythos into the more-or-less amorphous conception of a three-tiered after-life floating around at the time which has very little actual grounding on scripture. the entire thing (afterlife as hell/purgatory/heaven) comes from a handful of unrelated verses extrapolated to an absurd point that managed spread itself around the collective conscious. so he's fundamentally working outside a strict biblical context in the divine comedy. which makes sense, because it's poetry, not theology.

"God hates fags" for the same as why He hates anybody who has sexual practices outside of marriage - because these practices are driven by the law of the flesh, which is sin, and not by His law of the spirit, which is grace. Having sex outside of marriage is a disgusting act in the sight of God because of how self-serving, and narcissistic it is - how it is driven by lust alone, a desire to possess something one has no legal/rightful claim to. It's a worship of the flesh, self-worship. Sex that takes place in marriage, on the other hand, is sex that is in submission to will of God, not sex serving its own ends but serving Gods to command to "be fruitful and multiply".
This is why homosexuality is ALWAYS abominable, because it can never produce anything more than lust, whereas heterosexuality can, in its proper fulfillment, produce a sense of duty and submission to God - bringing a child into the world to build it up in love and to prepare its soul for salvation through Christ. This kind of sex has consequences, it has seriousness, it makes people responsible. Homosexual sex (and much heterosexual sex) is pure vanity, having no responsibilities or commitments whatsoever, just a egotistical chase after orgasm. It's demonic, it's putting sensual pleasure on the throne where God sits, it's idolatry.
Now homosexuals who live "homosexual lifestyles", especially those who are apparently "married", might say that there sexual relationships aren't just based on lust, but also on companionship and love. Companionship and love are both good, but the idea that sex brings forth companionship and love is a complete lie. The only time that sex brings forth companionship and love is when sex is subjected to a higher purpose, as it is when a married couple have sex for the purpose of begetting a child. Without this higher purpose and commitment sex is nothing more than that egotistical desire to satisfy the flesh, and the "companionship" that results when homosexuals (and many heterosexuals) have sex is a companionship based on a shared taste for an evil thing, they are companions in sin, like thieves and murderous gangs who are companions in their crimes. Christ said "love thy neighbour", and the idea that "if I could have sex with my neighbour, surely I would love him more" is double-minded treachery, it's sin trying to justify itself, sin so proud that it would even use Holy Scripture to try and justify itself.

faggots

>>4207732
The Catholic Church does. Or, rather, the Holy Spirit does, and the Catholic Church is the Church that claims the Holy Spirit as the sole author of its dogma.

Because it's merely a political gesture to infiltrate depravity in every facet of life until the little sodomites are accepted as normal.

>>4207762
>this is what christians actually believe

>>4207762
This is the only good religious reason against homosexuality I've ever read, even if I don't agree with it, it makes more sense than the fidgeting "Well, marriage is supposed to be between men and women lol" and "Children adopted by gay parents wouldn't have a parent of the other sex lol1!!@$r324u53hgmj89hui~!!!"

BUT, is there a catch that homosexual relations are OK without sex?

>>4207776
This is what every reasonable persons believe. The logic is sound. Sex that doesn't bring forth a child is pure vanity, pure hedonism. It doesn't improve you in any way, it harms you by making you a slave to sensual pleasures. The Christians aren't the only ones with contempt with sensuality, the Greek and Roman world thought for the most part that sensuality was effeminacy and lack of self-control.

Why are atheist so dumb?

>>4207721
Now, now, children... if your understanding of base concepts is wrong, then it follows all you've built on top of this erroneous base is at best equally wrong with a few accidental half truths mixed in.

If you think of Hell as a place then whole of Christianity is rubbish. Hell as a place concept is for illetrate farmers. Are you an illiterate farmer?

Hell is a state that we can all end up in depending on our psychological relationship with ourselves and with the world. In early Christianity, lust was seen as something that brings negative states. Sex was only for procreation, so if anyone, ie gays, had sex with no possibility of having children they were in 'sin'. Sin just means mistake, don't get hang up on this either.

So to say that gays are going to hell strictly speaking is true. But so is everyone else for worse sins and in harder hells. You can also flip this around, as Jesus does I think, by saying you that believe in gays are going straight to hell, have you only had sex without lust, that you can judge this other person on their lust?

Summary, I can see why people don't like religion.

>>4207787
>this is what christians actually believe

>>4207787
>christians complaining about being slaves

laughing_nietzsche.jpg

>the Greek and Roman world thought for the most part that sensuality was effeminacy and lack of self-control.

mostly wrong.

>>4207783
>BUT, is there a catch that homosexual relations are OK without sex?

Of course, but those aren't homoSEXUAL anymore, are they? They are just homo, homophilic. Far from there being anything wrong with loving your fellow man, Christ called it the "Royal Law" and the path to salvation.
There is a vulgar "masculinity" that exists, a loutishness and philistinism which makes it difficult for men to openly love with one and other because it is afraid that love is "just a feeling" and feelings as such are a weakness. But you don't even need to get as far as Christ to see that love of other men is a strength rather than a weakness, Christ only perfected it -- Homer shows quite conclusively that love for your fellow man, when it is based on a desire to achieve what is noble together with him, is the greatest and most divine inspiration a man can have. If Achilles hadn't loved Patroclus he would have been no more than a sulky kid who abandoned his fellow Greeks on the shore of Troy because the arrogant King insulted him.

>>4207812
Thanks anon, that was really interesting and a bit enlightening.

>>4207762

i actually considered not masturbating or having sex because of this. good explanation.

>>4207807

>implying the overman doesn't live in a cage, even if it is of his own choosing

>>4207762

Holy shit christians are retarded

"Carlos stared in disbelief as the bible flung open. From its pages rose millions of tiny Faggots. Faggots!? Faggots. Faggots. Faggots. Faggots.... Faggots. All over the floor of the St. John the Baptist church, in Leytonstone."

>>4207762
def not reading this big unformatted post

>>4207858
>dat rationalization for why you follow slave morality

>>4207787
>Sex that doesn't bring forth a child is pure vanity, pure hedonism.
how is wanting a little you around not pure vanity, pure hedonism?

>>4207660
God doesn't send fags to hell. He sends sodomites to hell.

>>4207921
i wouldn't count on that idiot understanding that the perpetuation of the human race is a fundamentally vain pursuit

>>4207679
Fuck off, heretic.

>>4207660

>assuming to know the will of God

You're forgetting the mysteries, friend. Perhaps these men may be sinners, but only God knows the interiors of their souls.

>>4207943
If God wants us to continue the race then it is not vain. If God does not want us to continue the race then it is vain. God reveals what is vanity and what is wisdom - as it says, "the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom". The reason is that God is wise, infinitely wiser than any human being. God has absolute knowledge, the truth. Without a revelation from God we can't really know with certainty whether or what we "know" is certain or just an approximation, and in the end unless we believe that our actions are guided by a divine will then they must be guided by a purely human will, and the human will is relative and subject to perversion, corruption and change, and so is unable to declare with any authority that it acts with conscience of what is right and what is wrong.

it's an act of subversion. modernizing archaic religious ideals. but all Christians pick and choose what parts they ignore. wearing wool, eating bacon, getting your dick mutilated, etc.

i had no idea there were so many christfags on /lit/

>>4208062
I didn't browse /lit/ for a while, and there seems to be a lot more fedora-tipping and antisemitism now. And walls of text about theology.

>>4208096
the fedora-tipping is because 4chan has pretty much set itself in opposition to reddit/tumblr culture. the antisemitism is just /pol/ leaking.

and (coherent) walls of text about theology have been a feature of /lit/ since the beginning. /lit/ definitely leans away from the pop-scientism atheist rhetoric and gives people like Aquinas et al a chance.

What if there's no God.

>>4208107
>>4208096
>>4208062
demiurge is right, theology is given more of a chance here that it is generally on popular websites, and that's a good thing - theology does deserve more of a chance.
Theology can be very sophisticated.
People here will talk about Freud and Lacan but these "psychoanalysts" are basically theologians, the main difference is that the object of theology is the divine whereas the object of psychoanalysis is some other metaphysical entity like the "ego" or "will", but the methods are similar. Hegel was more or less a theologian too, one who focused on "history" as being related to the divine.

>>4208151
What if you used a question mark when asking a question instead of trying to pass it off as a statement like a passive-aggressive faggot?

>>4208171
>believing in God

kek. I bet you are American, I bet you are circumcised, I bet you had to pledge alliegence and go to church your whole childhood. topkek

kek

>>4208176
ur a fukin retarted cunt :L

>>4208107
Fedora-tipping is usually just shitposting. The fact that it's /pol/-style rather than reddit-style shitposting doesn't make it better.

>and (coherent) walls of text about theology have been a feature of /lit/ since the beginning. /lit/ definitely leans away from the pop-scientism atheist rhetoric and gives people like Aquinas et al a chance.
We don't have walls of text about philosophy. We're not that kind of board. We like to talk about biographical ephemera and how James Joyce liked farts.

The walls of text about theology in the thread above are just individuals expounding their somewhat eccentric and personal opinions. When I read someone holding forth on some subject and referring to their religious beliefs as if they were rationally compelling justifications, I am bemused and move on. Or sometimes sigh inwardly. And often these are the same people who are posting "*tips fedora*" at every opportunity.

That's not to say that Aquinas or other theologians are not an important part of western intellectual history. But this isn't Russell's History of Western Philosophy. This is 4chan.

>>4208179
Hit a bit too close to home, didn't it? Funny thing is, you Americans think you're all free individualists, however, the truth is I can guess your whole childhood in a single sentence.

Turn off you TV and come visit Europe one time, you might learn something from us.

>>4208180
>Fedora-tipping is usually just shitposting

yeah, but what isn't though? it's not a particularly damning thing to label something as on this board.

>We don't have walls of text about philosophy

yeah we do. look harder, maybe on the archive, but it happens and fairly regularly too. perhaps a bit less since the marxists took to posting a couple of daily threads but there is still content like this being posted.

i think you just dislike the way we present philosophy, because it's buried beneath condescension and memes and obscurantism, but its there and to be honest, it is mostly by the book. a lot of /lit/ is regurgitated primary or secondary sources.

>>4208188
I've never left Europe. I mostly watch TV and browse the Internet. Though I did see Florence one time. Maybe that makes me better than Americans. Also I don't believe in God.

>>4208171
I speak like that IRL though.

>>4208188
All that superiority complex, I thought we are supposed to learn something from the books we read. I guess I'm wrong on that part.

>>4208180
>>4208062

just because they school everyone on christian philosophy,, and knowledge they are Christian?

I mean they probably are but then again most christians are retarded and follow faith blindly and these fellows don't

>>4207762
This is the first time I've read a rational reason for christians to be against homosexuality.

However, by extension, should they not also be against birth control as well as any sex that's had just for pleasure rather than with the explicit purpose of conception?

>>4208233
Exactly.

>>4208233
>should they not also be against birth control
They notably are.

>any sex that's had just for pleasure
Not exactly, sex as an expression of love between married individuals is encouraged. But it should be noted that it also serves a function, namely strengthening the couple.

>>4208207
Yes, you are wrong, unless you're reading European books

>>4208244
>closing my mind to a whole world of literature cause a 14 year old on 4chan told me so

I will need to pass on that.

>>4208037
>but all Christians pick and choose what parts they ignore. wearing wool, eating bacon, getting your dick mutilated, etc.

Someone saying this is the easiest way to tell that they don't have even a basic understanding of Christian theology. For example, take your complaint about circumcision. This is specifically settled in Acts 15 where the Jerusalem council states that Gentile Christians are not commanded to be circumcised. You've obviously never even read the New Testament.

>>4207762
that's also plato's argument

>>4208233
Forgiveness.
"Throw the first stone"
Etc.

>>4208243
>it also serves a function, namely strengthening the couple.

Actually, >>4207762 argued against this point: He said any non-productive (as in reproductive) sex is vain and unnecessary; a married couple having sex IS immoral if it isn't solely to bear a child, as putting any stock in the physical act of sex would be narcissism, vanity, ego-gratifying.


However, I would completely disagree with his entire thesis - that sensuality is sin and that subsequently sin exists in the first place. Asceticism, as any other oath, is a fairly low-brow philosophy: that dedicating yourself to following - and sticking through with - something is simply the type of mindset instilled in us from youth as a way of guaranteeing some advancement, a heightening of our marketability.

Following novelty, spontaneity and passion is the highest level of thought: completely contrary to what could ever be prescribed to us, it is one's transcendence to seeking out only the most fascinating and illusory the world around us has to offer. What will be achieved by limiting our desires?

>people saying KJV is "mistranslated"

doesn't fucking matter does it, since the Christians OP is talking about likely read the KJV and just choose to ignore it anyway

>>4208384
Yes, most advocates of heresies, at their core, simply reject the authority of Scripture. They will put up a facade of Scriptural argumentation, twisting texts as much as they can to support their perversions, but once these "argument" are put to rest, they will always cave in and reveal their true intentions: "Well you don't really believe everything the Bible says do you?" or something to that extent.

>>4208384
So you want people to be literal fundamentalists?

Display some nuance plz ok foggy

>>4208412
>Display some nuance

In other words, "Stop believing things that are politically incorrect."

>>4208335
>Actually, >>4207762 argued against this point: He said any non-productive (as in reproductive) sex is vain and unnecessary; a married couple having sex IS immoral if it isn't solely to bear a child, as putting any stock in the physical act of sex would be narcissism, vanity, ego-gratifying.

Yes, that's consistent with what I said. I believe that infertile couples or couples that for one reason or other can no longer have children ought to abstain from sex. There are verses in the Paul's epistles that support this.

>However, I would completely disagree with his entire thesis - that sensuality is sin and that subsequently sin exists in the first place. Asceticism, as any other oath, is a fairly low-brow philosophy: that dedicating yourself to following - and sticking through with - something is simply the type of mindset instilled in us from youth as a way of guaranteeing some advancement, a heightening of our marketability.

You misunderstand Christian theology. Sensuality isn't a sin because it's sensuality, sensuality is a sin because sensuality is a cleavage from God. This is where sin originates - in separation from God, who alone constantly desires the Good, what is good without impurity. To condemn somebody for sensuality is a mistake, because what condemns them is not their sensuality in itself, it's that they love their sensuality more than they love God. As Christ says, "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." So, properly, one should not condemn the sensual person but only the person who doesn't love God, and in this case sensuality is their particular idol, the particular thing they cling to in the darkness in resolutely disobeying and refusing to love God. There are plenty of other ways one might fail to love God than sensuality.
The Christian ideal is not asceticism. Christ said of Himself: "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." What Christ offers is abundance, not lack. The reason why Christianity suggests a measure of asceticism in regard to worldly pleasure is because these worldly pleasure are a block that stumbles us and keeps us from having the abundance that Christ promises.

To those who say that my original argument is unique to them and that they have never heard it said before: the reason is that you've never bothered to read scripture or Christian authorities on scripture, because there is an abundance of this stuff. The popular Christian slogans you hear in the media are not the Word of God, and you make a fool of yourself when you take these slogans as representative of Christ and dismiss Him through them. Christ came into the world to save you and you would rather delight in your smug opinions about "ignorant religious people" than seriously consider what Christ says about and for you.

>>4208335
eudaimonia

>>4207700

Actually, Catholics have specific teachings that say you can ignore shit in the Old Testament.

>>4207700
>>4208502
Yeah I don't know what you're talking about. The Catholic Church is quite explicit that scripture is not the only or ultimate source of doctrine. But sola scriptura was one of the main principles of the protestant reformers.

I have a question for the Christian expert if he's still here.

What if either partner is unable to bear children? Are they never allowed to have sex, as it would be in vain? Genuinely curious

Neither Catholics or Protestants believe that is the case.

Fun fact: to Catholics gay sex is as bad as masturbating, both are grave sins.

>>4208550
When Jesus got on the scene, he declared "all food clean" and basically said that all the obscure laws in the Old Testament were not as important as knowing God in your heart and treating your fellow man well.

>>4207660
No, they just choose to ignore twats like you.

>>4208550
>But sola scriptura was one of the main principles of the protestant reformers.

And the Reformers ably explained why some OT laws apply today and some don't. People act as if Protestants have never considered this issue before for some ignorant reason. The correct use of the Law was a chief concern during the Reformation and still is today.

>>4208606

There is no doctrine in protestantism. My word is as good as Luther's is as good as a fundie who never picked up on the contradictions between the gospels.

Well OP people are starting to try and say that Hell doesn't exist and is a modern invention, which begs the question as to what exactly it is Christ died to save us from and everything about salvation but yeah.

>>4208613
What is "your word"? Your interpretation of something in Scripture, I take it? Do you believe that Scripture was composed in order that humans would be able to understand it? Do you believe that a doctrinally correct interpretation is possible?

>>4208638
>What is "your word"? Your interpretation of something in Scripture, I take it?

Ya bruh.

>Do you believe that Scripture was composed in order that humans would be able to understand it?

Considering the many books were written by dudes so that it may be read by other dudes, I assume they are intelligible.


>Do you believe that a doctrinallly correct interpretation is possible?

Of course. It's the position of the Catholic Church.

>>4207660
>How can homos be fond of christianity if God sends all fags to hell? Do they just choose to ignore that part?

Yes. There is no way to rationalize it since it appears in the Old Testament and Paul specifically repeats it in the New Testament.

I dunno what sort of mental gymnastics they do to justify it

>>4208647
Thank you for clarifying.

In order for your interpretation to be "just as good" as the interpretation of any other person, that would imply that there is no way to accurately judge the correctness of different interpretations, or rather that Scripture could not actually be understood correctly by people. I don't see how your view of Scripture is consistent with your view of authority in Protestantism.

>>4208654

Being an active gay is no worse than being active in any other sin.

>>4208654

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NeaUjLQAhs

>>4208659

Protestants are tards who think God himself wrote the bible. That means it might not necessarily be intelligible. I am not a protestant. I know that the books were written by many different authors in many different time periods for many different purposes. They must be interpreted with this in mind.

>>4208662
>Being an active gay is no worse than being active in any other sin.

If you are actively sinning on purpose and make a life style out of it, i.e you purposely go around killing people, you aren't a christian.

It makes no sense. It's not the same as slipping up and telling a lie in a tough situation, or stealing food because you were hungry...

A practicing homosexual makes it his business to sin and enjoy it.

>>4208573
>What if either partner is unable to bear children? Are they never allowed to have sex, as it would be in vain? Genuinely curious

Yeah, I said here >>4208447

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+7&version=KJV

This chapter of 1 Corinthians speaks of the matter. Paul pretty much says that it is better not to marry and to give yourself completely to the Lord (whether you're a man or a woman), and that virginity is better than any form of sexual practice, but that if one is tempted by sexual desire one ought to marry, because "it's better to marry than to burn", i.e. better to take on the responsibility of marriage which puts a restraint on lust than to give lust absolute free reign. In this case sex between the married couple is a way of dealing with their desire in a way that is the least offensive to God, but in the ideal case one is not lead by sexual desires at all. Still, it's far better to marry than to burn. In verse 5 it says, though, that even married couples such practice celibacy "for a time" in order to live the life that is pleasing to God.
I don't think this form of sex is totally vain because it's clearly conscious of what it is its trying to avoid - mortal sin.
Paul doesn't here touch upon the sex which purpose is the child, and I think that form of sex is exclusively the kind of sex which is as good and pure as virginity/celibacy, because in that case sex is only the occasion through which one, together with the partner through love, aims at something better and different from itself. It's a means and not an end, and this means is by no means a dirty or impure means, because by being guided by its proper end sex is in its original pure state, free of sin. Sex in that case is ruled by love rather than by lust.

a habitual homosexual christian is like a muslim who eats pork and shits on his quran everyday, utterly insane and hilarious.

>>4208676

It's as bad as masturbating or using contraception. I'm sure that most Christians do these things without the guilt in their heart.

>>4208692
>It's as bad as masturbating

Bible never specifically outlaws masturbation in the Old Testament or New Testament.

It only appears in the old testament in a vague sense that can be interpreted away. Try again heretic.

>>4208696
>referencing the bible and not The Catechism of the Catholic Church

No you.

>>4208674
>Protestants are tards who think God himself wrote the bible.

The people who wrote the Bible did so under divine inspiration, if that is what you are referring to.

>>4208700

I'm referring to the bastardized understanding of divine inspiration in which the bible is considered to be the final word on God and his covenants.

>>4208706
The canon is closed. If there were to be any supposed new revelation, its veracity would be dependent upon its concordance with Scripture. (Gal. 1:8-9)

>>4207679
lol

>>4208731

It was closed by the "proto-catholic church"~400 years after paul wrote the letter to the Galatians. I don't think he is an authority on this matter.

>>4208671
He says that he is openly gay because his Catholic conscience tells him that he ought to "tell the truth". Now, there is in Catholicism an admonition that one should confess ones sins because it leads to repentance where hiding the sin would only serve to breed more sin. This is true. Here's the problem, he never says that his admitting to be gay is an admission of sin. The fact is that he is "proud to be gay". So his saying that it's his Catholicism which drives him to "tell the truth" is a deception, because the Catholic spirit says, "it's true, I'm a sinner", whereas he is saying, "it's true, and I'm proud of who I am!" What kind of confession is that? To reveal what one is proud of? "It's true, ladies and gentleman", blushes, "I am in fact the author of that renowned work published under the famous pseudonym. Please, your sympathies, you understand the difficulties involved in making such a confession."
This isn't humility, it's arrogance.
The fact that it is arrogant is clearly shown by his statement that he hopes that Church will, in the future, change its position on homosexuality --- the Catholic Church, which holds that its dogmas are eternal and have remained unchanged from the beginning, THIS he thinks ought to change its mind to accommodate his that knows better.

The cause of this arrogance is revealed by the comment which says that "Christ taught acceptance and love". No, Christ taught repentance and love. Insofar as you are a sinner Christ does not accept you, it's only that He loves you under the temporary condition that you be helped through His love to repentance and purity of heart, so that in being purified He can love you eternally. Kierkegaard talks about this problem -- that because God chose to reveal Himself in the Incarnation and humbly assuming human form some would make the arrogant mistake of turning God into a friend or a "buddy" who is "on your side", rather than as the Absolute whose side YOU must come to. Christ isn't a "meek and mild" friend, He's an apocalyptic figure who says, "if you are not with me you are against me", and that those who are not with Him will "depart into everlasting fire". The fact that through this Christ loved and sojourned with sinners expressed His earnest wish that sinners not be misled into believing that there is no hope for them and proudly saying, "what do I have to do with salvation? Salvation is too good for me, I have nothing to do with it", but that God even has hope for them, and so they have no excuse in their lack of hope, because if God Almighty has hope for them then how meaningless is it for them to say, "there is no hope for me"? If they believed in God they would know that "for God all things are possible", that they can saved, that even in their wretchedness they can be transformed into something worthy to adorn Heaven. Still, without God we are wretched, and Christ came to save us from our wretchedness, not to be made pathetic by congratulating us for it.

>>4208751
Paul's writings are the inspired Word of God. If he teaches therein that we are to evaluate new teaching based upon the Gospel that man possessed in his time, then that is what we are to do. Any teaching contrary to it is accursed.

>>4208784

The Gospels were written after Paul and he never shows that he had any knowledge of them existing. The Pauline letters are the earliest christian texts that we posses. If Paul's Christians were reading anything it was not deemed worth of being canonized or lost to time.

>>4208794
Oh, I think I see the problem. Let me clarify what I mean.

1. The canon is closed. It closed with the writing of the book of Revelation. The Church did not close the canon, but recognized it as closed.

2. We are commanded by Paul to evaluate any new teachings against the Gospel which was delivered by the Apostles. The Gospel is detailed in the New Testament.

3. If any new teaching is contrary to the Gospel contained in the New Testament then it thus accursed, whether it be delivered by man or angel.

>>4208731
i like how you're response to the implication that the bible is not the final word on God is "no look! it is! here's an example from the bible!"

>>4208848
I am conversing with a person who as far as I can tell believes the Bible to be the word of God and an authoritative document. Given this agreement, the section I referenced is quite clear that the Gospel is set and will not change. It's about as clear as it can get, really. There's no contradiction like you are implying.

Gal. 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

>>4208814
>>4208861
>I am conversing with a person who as far as I can tell believes the Bible to be the word of God and an authoritative document.

I do not believe it is the word of God. I am not a Christian and beyond that I don't find it theologically sound to consider it to be the literal word of God given what we know about it's history, it's internal contradictions, and poor Greek. It's authority was recognized by The Church specifically because it fit with their views unlike the books which were excluded. There were many Christianities in the early days. The Church formulated the religion you know.

>1. The canon is closed. It closed with the writing of the book of Revelation. The Church did not close the canon, but recognized it as closed.

Revelation is not the last book to be written chronologically. It is suggested that it was written at 70-100 AD. Many books come later than that.

>2. We are commanded by Paul to evaluate any new teachings against the Gospel which was delivered by the Apostles. The Gospel is detailed in the New Testament.

>3. If any new teaching is contrary to the Gospel contained in the New Testament then it thus accursed, whether it be delivered by man or angel.

The Gospel here means Paul's take on Christ's message. Gospel in greek is euangélion which means good news and is used to refer to the message of Jesus. He is saying listen to me and no one else, not that they should be following books that HAVE NOT YET BEEN WRITTEN.

>>4208935
>I do not believe it is the word of God. I am not a Christian

Thanks for clarifying that. I was under the impression that we had some common ground upon which to discuss this, but it is clear we do not. I was conversing with you because I thought you to be a Catholic; presuming you are the same person as >>4208647 that means I read too much into your post there. Anyway, I don't have any interest in arguing against liberal atheistic takes on Christianity.

I suggest to you the book "The Heresy of Orthodoxy" by Kostenberger and Kruger, as it refutes the modern viewpoint of Early Christianity lacking a clear orthodoxy.

>>4208989
Damn dude. I was enjoying the discourse.

How can women be fond of christianity if it basically tells them they're slaves and should obey their male masters?

>>4209047
Not all women have been deceived by the sin of feminism, thank God.

Why is it that society mostly operates without considering the position of the church on issues (abortion, holidays, the judicial system), but as soon as it's about homosexuality, it's suddenly seen as an authority again, if only one to defy? It boggles the mind that rational, independent, atheist folks suddenly have the burning desire to know what a bishop thinks about a very narrow, specific issue. If, regardless of faith, people actually studied Christianity, they wouldn't need to ask those questions and likely arrive at a much more sensible opinon, and if they just didn't care, everything would be fine too.

As for OPs question, you live in mortal sin every single moment of your life. As a human, you cannot help but sin constantly, and any of your good deeds are inspired by God. The law of God isn't something you can follow more or less, in fact, it's impossible to uphold in this world. That's not to say homosexuality isn't a sin (none of us can know what pleases God and what doesn't), but it's no worse than what you do every day and it won't make the rift between you and God any bigger, since it's already impossibly, infinitely large.

>>4209110
>Why is it that society mostly operates without considering the position of the church on issues (abortion, holidays, the judicial system), but as soon as it's about homosexuality, it's suddenly seen as an authority again, if only one to defy? It boggles the mind that rational, independent, atheist folks suddenly have the burning desire to know what a bishop thinks about a very narrow, specific issue. If, regardless of faith, people actually studied Christianity, they wouldn't need to ask those questions and likely arrive at a much more sensible opinon, and if they just didn't care, everything would be fine too.

I think it's because of the modern view that homosexuality is an intrinsic part of who a person is. These people have deluded themselves into believing that their sexuality defines their being, so when God's judgment on the subject is presented, they feel insulted and offended in a more personal way than with sins that they view only as actions. They think Christians are trying to destroy and condemn their identity.

>(none of us can know what pleases God and what doesn't),

Yes we can. The Bible is quite clear on many things that please and displease God.

>but it's no worse than what you do every day and it won't make the rift between you and God any bigger, since it's already impossibly, infinitely large.

This is not correct. While humans are evil and inclined to sin, a regenerate believer undergoes the process of sanctification through the work of the Holy Spirit within him. He is brought into greater obedience to God's Law. A person living an active homosexual lifestyle is resolutely living in sin and rebelling against God. That is not the same as a person who prayerfully fights against their sins and occasionally succumbs. The rift between us and God has been bridged by his Son Jesus Christ who has died in order to reconcile us with the Father, who loves and shows mercy to his children.

How can savages live on the reservations if their lifespans are less than even a brachycephalic epsilon. Do they just choose to ignore that part?

I know its not directly related to the topic at hand but christian anon how valid/strong are the claims/arguments made by non-trinitarian christians?

>>4209130
>Yes we can. The Bible is quite clear on many things that please and displease God
Debatable. The rules laid down by God in the OT are impossible to adhere to for humans, hence our living in sin constantly. Additionally (as per protestant doctrine), our actions don't influence whether we are saved or not. You're correct in the sense that we were given a rough direction on how to worship in our daily lives, but when it comes down to specifics, God isn't some kind of automaton that it's possible to get a relationship score with like in a video game. There are very few things that will always be looked on favourably by God, and most of them we wouldn't recognize. I guess I'm saying that humanity is too flawed to perceive Good clearly enough to judge others' or even our own actions with any degree of precision.

>a regenerate believer
I'd argue that Romans tells us that salvation is not necessarily dependent on believing consciously - some people are 'uncut' before God, some aren't, without a strict connection to their allegiance to a particular church.

>a person who prayerfully fights against their sins and occasionally succumbs
No such person exists. Why are you on a computer instead of helping the poor? Why do you have any property when you could give it away to charity? Every single one of us consciously allows sin into their lives - there's no reason to think of yourself as better than your fellow man, even if he likes to pork dudes.

>>4209154
I of course do not think they are valid at all. There is a spectrum of non-Trinitarian beliefs, however, ranging from what seems to be unfortunate misunderstandings due to poor exegesis, to resolute rejection of the Trinity and in many cases Scriptural authority as well (the book of John is a common target of attack). There are also a few NT passages that can be misread either due to a misunderstanding of the construction of the underlying Greek, or simple ignorance of context. I think it best to remember the warning of Peter, that there is Scripture "which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest... unto their own destruction." In other words, make use of the labors of the learned theologians of the past, especially in areas such as this.

>>4209172
I appreciate your response, one last question from me:
I know there are some significant differences when it comes to questionable translations such as the good news or the watch tower bibles which would definitely be detrimental to understanding the bible but does this issue exist for the NIV?

From the few times its been discussed the consensus seems to be that the KJV is more aestheticly pleasing and important as a piece of literature but ultimately less accurate than the NIV.

>>4209166
>Debatable. The rules laid down by God in the OT are impossible to adhere to for humans, hence our living in sin constantly.
In their totality, we cannot. But they function as a guide for how we should live, and we are brought into greater obedience to the Law through the work of the Spirit within the believer.
>Additionally (as per protestant doctrine), our actions don't influence whether we are saved or not.
I'll state here that I am a Calvinist so you can understand my perspective. While it is true that our salvation is not dependent upon our own obedience, obedience is a necessary fruit of salvation. If there is no sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit in a person, that person is not regenerate.
>You're correct in the sense that we were given a rough direction on how to worship in our daily lives, but when it comes down to specifics, God isn't some kind of automaton that it's possible to get a relationship score with like in a video game. There are very few things that will always be looked on favourably by God, and most of them we wouldn't recognize.
I think you would be surprised what thorough and reverent exegesis of Scripture would reveal about how we are to worship God. The Puritans are a beacon in this realm.
>I guess I'm saying that humanity is too flawed to perceive Good clearly enough to judge others' or even our own actions with any degree of precision.
Yet Christ has commanded that we "judge righteous judgment." Even unregenerate man is capable of understanding what is right, to an extent, through natural revelation (Ro. 2:14-15). What we understand specially of God and morality, we know only because God has revealed it to us.

>I'd argue that Romans tells us that salvation is not necessarily dependent on believing consciously - some people are 'uncut' before God, some aren't, without a strict connection to their allegiance to a particular church.
Jn. 3:18 " He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

>No such person exists. Why are you on a computer instead of helping the poor? Why do you have any property when you could give it away to charity? Every single one of us consciously allows sin into their lives - there's no reason to think of yourself as better than your fellow man, even if he likes to pork dudes.
Ro. 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

>>4209189
Unfortunately the issue of translation is a very complex one. I can tell you to spare yourself the trouble and use the time-tested, ecclesiastically created and approved, King James Bible, the universal English Bible for nigh four centuries; but I doubt you want to just take my word on it.

I suggest that you read some of the articles published by the Trinitarian Bible Society. You might start with this one

http://www.tbsbibles.org/pdf_information/133-1.pdf

There is an article about the NIV here that would explain the issues better than I could.

http://www.tbsbibles.org/articles/new-international-version-what-todays-christian-needs-to-know-about-the-niv-1

More of their articles are here. The sections of relevance would be "Authorized (King James) Version" near the top and the "English Versions" near the bottom.

http://www.tbsbibles.org/articles

>>4207762

I feel truly sorry for anyone who thinks like this.

To be so ashamed of your own body to think that enjoying it is evil -- how sad.

What's even sadder are the nonbelievers ITT calling such a fundamentally flawed and diseased way of thinking "actually logical."

>>4209246
Have you considered that the issue is not being ashamed of your body, but understanding how your body is to be properly used?

>>4209246
>being unaware that your point of view is as perverse to the christian as yours is to them

At least they are aware of the conflict.

>>4209251

There is no proper way to use your body.

As long as you do not harm the wellbeing or agency of another, your body is yours to do with as you see fit, and there is nothing fundamentally immoral about what you choose.

Any other way of thinking is a sickness of the mind. Anyone who would impose this way of thinking on another is in the wrong.

>>4209252

I'm fully aware of that. I'm also aware that there exist pedophiles who think that not molesting children is perverse. This doesn't mean there's a "conflict" between molesting children and not molesting children.

>>4209261
How do you determine whether something is "a sickness of the mind"?

>>4209265

Anyone who would repress another's agency because of an arbitrary system of magical thinking is sick. It's as if you wanted to force me not to read a certain author because it's "not the proper way to use my eyes." It is, at bottom, an insane arrogance -- and at worst, it's a twisted and sadistic lack of empathy.

>>4209270
Why are arrogance and lack of empathy wrong?

>>4209277

I haven't said they are wrong in and of themselves. What is wrong is forcing your beliefs on another. To proclaim: no, you cannot love someone in such and such a way because that is not the proper way to use your body. That is the wrong. Your agency ends where mine begins.

>>4209286
>What is wrong is forcing your beliefs on another.

Why?

>To proclaim: no, you cannot love someone in such and such a way because that is not the proper way to use your body. That is the wrong.

Why?

>Your agency ends where mine begins.

Why?

>>4207762
dem life-denying values

>>4209288

Because there must be some baseline of decency in human interaction to facilitate the existence of society and prevent man from reverting to the Hobbesian state of nature or declining into an Orwellian thoughtcrime dystopia. I set out with the premise that I value individual human agency and a high-functioning free society above all things; these are my axioms and all follows from that.

I will not be told what to do by people who believe in the invisible sky-man. Believe in him all you want and live a half-examined life because of that -- fine by me. Don't demand I do the same.

>>4209261
>>4209270

You are assured that you are right and seek to crush opposing opinions because they are threatening. There is nothing wrong with this, but you must recognize that the situation with pedos and christians are essentially the same, meaning that they act out points of view which you find threatening, therefore you acknowledge them as enemy.

Your language is tinged with subjectivity even though you seek to turn it into a scientific matter through the use of medical terminology. You fail to understand that you are in opposition because of ideology that you hold onto. Arguing that a behavior is sickness is equivalent to calling it sin.

>>4209296
I demand that you obey the commands of God and have faith in his Son Jesus Christ, repent of your sins, and walk henceforth in obedience to the Law of God.

>>4209300
No.

>>4208447
>Sensuality isn't a sin because it's sensuality, sensuality is a sin because sensuality is a cleavage from God.
Clearly you misunderstood Christianism for some sort of mystic religion with a direct contact between the practitioner and God.

The good Christian isn't on some sort of enlightenment path. He complies to divine law, and his link with God goes through his minister.
Asceticism is a sin if you're not going to the seminar. Talk to your priest.

>>4209302
I'm sorry anon but you have a sickness of the mind. Paul even speaks of your condition: "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient" You are living in rebellion against your creator. You show an insane arrogance, to believe that you are the master of your own life, and a twisted and sadistic lack of empathy for the well-being of those around you who will be hurt by your sinfulness. Your arbitrary system of atheistic thinking had led you astray, and it is sick. I will pray for you.

>>4209310

Instead of praying you should do a better job of arguing. Shit flinging will only make him hate your ilk more.

>>4208447
>To those who say that my original argument is unique to them and that they have never heard it said before: the reason is that you've never bothered to read scripture or Christian authorities on scripture,
I have a feeling you never read the Song of Songs if you thing sensuality is a cleavage from God.

I can feel your protestant self-contradictions from here.

>>4209308
>god is everywhere
>need to go through another human to contact him

>>4209314
I think you haven't read the conversation closely enough to understand what I was getting at.

>>4209308
>his link with God goes through his minister.
You missed the entire point of the New Testament. Do you even know what Jesus coming mean? Dp you even know why we end prayers with "in the name of Jesus"?

>>4209316
>being a mystic

>>4209319
>You missed the entire point of the New Testament.
kek
Maybe you missed the "Church" bit, dumbass.
I encourage you to leave the heretical path you're on and talk with a priest of the one and only Church of Jesus Christ.

>>4209320
>authentic relationships with god are now "mysticism"

>>4209326
>authentic relationships with god
What next, you're gonna autoproclaim yourself a prophet?

>>4209317

What you're getting at is nonsense because there is no god therefore no demonstrable harm wrought by "sin." On the other hand there is demonstrable harm wrought by a society that bases its laws around theology. Take a trip to Saudi Arabia someday if you disagree.

>>4209326
>authentic

You shouldnt abuse that word

*tips fedora and rides of into the horizon on a black horse with no name*

>>4209333
b-but muh degeneracy

>>4209331
It worked for Jesus

>>4209340
How heretical.

>>4209246
>I feel truly sorry for anyone who thinks like this.

You truly don't, you truly feel contempt and not pity.

>To be so ashamed of your own body to think that enjoying it is evil -- how sad.

It's not about being ashamed of your body, it's about being ashamed of the sins that we, in our bodily weakness, commit and have the inclination to commit again and again and again. It is righteous to be ashamed of your sin, to not be ashamed of your sin is a monstrosity.
You're basically lying and deceiving here by saying that we hate our bodies and don't want to "enjoy them". No, we do want to enjoy our bodies as much as you do, it's just that we disagree on what constitutes real happiness and what constitutes wasting pleasures that dissipate us. For example - should I go and ingest every drug I can find in order to "enjoy my body"? Should I eat every kind of food I can get my hands on in order to "enjoy my body"? Should I have sex with everything I can have sex with in order to "enjoy my body"? No, all of these would be destructive to my soul which is the flower of my body, not to mention how destructive they would be to my body itself.
You look down on us for not wanting to indulge in every sensual pleasure? Fine, but we look down on sensuality, because we know what it is --- weakness, effeminacy, a lack of faithfulness and commitment. You don't advocate enjoying the body, you want to abuse it, you want to harvest your nerves for pleasure. I have a responsibility to my own body and to God who create it not to my rape my body for pleasure.

>>4209261
>As long as you do not harm the wellbeing or agency of another, your body is yours to do with as you see fit, and there is nothing fundamentally immoral about what you choose.

This is the liberal first principle, and it should be a warning to liberals that this "do what thou wilt as long as you don't prevent other from doing what they wilt" is just one small step from "do what thou wilt" alone, which was the motto of Aleister Crowley and also the motto of the Devil.
Here's the difference. You think that I have a right to do what I want with my body, and I repudiate that right. I have no right to my body, because I was bought at a price, and I must honor God with my body. My God and my parents gave me this body, and if dishonor it then I dishonor God and my parents.
Of course, you don't believe in the authority of God or your parents, because liberals are essentially ---- patricidal, fatherless.

How can christians be afraid of hell if God forgives everyone? Do they just choose to ignore that part?

>>4209789
God is a forgiving god, but you also have to seek his forgiveness. You cannot run around, serving the flesh, then turn around and pretend it never happened. If this were the case, we could all just sin and commit whatever immoral acts we pleased, without consequence.

>>4209793
But Jesus died for everyone's sins. Thus if I die, I die for my sins as well, thus forgiven.

>>4209802
I'll bet you've got a throbbing hard-on right now. Are you satisfied with yourself?

>>4209812
No, because vagina. And I am unsatisfied.

>>4209829
*tips fedora*

Thanks for sharing, freethinking atheist.

"In this moment, I am a individual. Not by the doing of any phony females, but because I am enlightened by m-"

>>4209839
But I'm Orthodox, idiot,

>>4207660
I'd say the same way people who swear, cheat, lie, and do all the other shit live by the Bible.

It's just a whooole big book about ignoring the part's that are inconvenient and preaching the parts that happen to fit your agenda against people you dislike.

The People who love Jesus the most are also the people against health care or foodstamps or other "handouts" They just choose to ignore the part where Jesus feeds and heals the poor because it doesn't help them in their agenda. Same with the Homophobia. Yes there is a passage that says that a man should not lie with another man but there is also parts about dragons and giants and people who are 900 years old no not lived 900 years ago they just lived for over 900 years. Also parts about fucking various animals and guys with Dicks like Horses that ejaculate like donkeys.
We just choose to ignore these parts and rather teach the nice parts.

Also: It's mostly idiots "preaching" that shit. The church and it's priests and higher ups almost all say that not every word in the Bible is truth and should be lived by. They say it was written many many years ago and therefore some of it's views are outdated.

>>4209841
Will you go out with me, please respond?

>>4208278
The early Christians loved Plato when they realized how easily he fit in with Christian teachings

>>4209312
>that whole passage about titties

>>4209859
I actually think that Socrates and Plato were God's way of preparing the gentiles for Christianity. Among the pre-Christian gentile, Socrates is about as close as any Gentile gets to being a prophet in the Hebrew sense. Being motivated by a divine voice, he points out the moral hypocrisies of the people and ends up accepting his own death at their hands for the sake of the truth. This "for the sake of the truth" is Christian.

>>4209923
Except Christianity is so mired down with moral hypocrisies he would have attacked them as vitriolically as he attacked the Greek statesmen of his day. Remember how the greeks viewed ethics, they would have found ethics tied to God abhorrent.

>>4209312
It's not so much sensuality itself but the abuse of it. In terms of virtue being overly sensual is a lack of temperance, and in theological terms being overly sensual is a lack of love for the divine and of the worship of God.
This is consistent with what I said before. I said that sensuality was not condemnable in itself, only that when somebody loves sensuality instead of loving God is it condemnable.
There is no need to hate sensuality, but the worship of sensuality is to be as despised as the worship of any false idol.

>>4209930
>Remember how the greeks viewed ethics, they would have found ethics tied to God abhorrent.

Yeah, and that's where Plato differed from the Greeks. There's a part early in the public where Socrates condemns polytheism as nonsense, because the divine is inherently good and perfect, so the idea that it can have changing passions and take many shapes is to say that it falls out of the one shape of the divine.
This is not inconsistent with Christian theology where God assumes the form of a man in Christ, because in this case God isn't actually changing his form, Christ is literally of the same substance as God and in Him the human is divine.

>>4209956
Socrates would just constantly press upon that as nonsense.

>>4209957
I don't think he would have. I think Socrates was, uniquely among the Greeks at the time, of the character that if he had met Christ he would have repented and worshiped Him.
Socrates' "you can only know that you know nothing" is not to say that there is no such thing as knowledge or truth, only that humans are of such a wretched nature that their claims to knowledge will always fall embarrassingly short of real wisdom. This saying, as Kierkegaard said, was the Greek rendering of the Hebrew saying, "the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom". Socrates' "Socratic Ingorance" is a kind of fear and trembling before God --- to know that there is an absolute truth and in all likeliness you fall short of it.
Now, in the person of Christ I think Socrates would recognized that He was the truth incarnate. In the Symposium Socrates' discourse on love moved a man to tears, saying that "even though Socrates is ugly on the outside, his inner riches are better than any man I have seen. He is the only man that has ever put me to shame." I think if Socrates' had heard Jesus' discourse on love he would have been affected even more deeply. I think that the same fear of God that moved him to express his Socratic Ignorance, insisting that he knew nothing, would have moved him to admit that Christ had knowledge that only God could possibly have.

>>4209977
You're shoving God into the mouth of someone accused of corrupting the youth by way of promoting atheism. I don't think anyone but the shadiest of Christian apologetics would agree with you.

>>4209979
But Socrates didn't promote atheism, he promoted a proto-monotheism through his worship of the truth and the truth alone, which led him to consider much of the Greek myths and tales about divinities as nonsense. Socrates never denounced divinity itself though - he never expressed atheism. They don't even accuse him atheism, they accuse him of believing in "different gods" and introducing them. Socrates rejects the idea that he didn't believe in any divinity as impossible, because it was his communication with the voice he thought divine that drove him in his pursuits in the first place.

>>4209990
There is a huge leap between that and postulating Socrates accepting Jesus

>>4208188
Europe is a liberal shithole, what the fuck are you talking about with "freedom"

>>4210021
>Burgerland
>Freedom
top kek my fellow clapistani

Most Christians are weak in that they need an external source for their morality,like a crutch to let them know that everything is alright, everything will be okay, as long as you love God you'll find happiness. Whereas existentialists and humanists and the like recognize that you're the master of your own life, and no one can get any shit done but you, there's no god to look after you, you gotta man up or get out.

inb4 *tips fedora*
inb4 euphoric

>>4210117
Namaste

>>4207660
Protestant gays don't go to hell as long as they have faith

>>4207660
He of you who is sinless shall cast the first stone

>>4210117
Are you saying that it is wrong to be weak in that way or what?

>>4209990
>thinking Socrates was a prophet
>not realizing he was an extremely intelligent schizophrenic, who mastered his illness and profited from it, since he invoked it as divine inspiration.

Christians sure are retarded.

>>4210126
Not necessarily, as long as they recognize that weakness is there.
This is anecdotal, but I found the world to be a much more beautiful place when I realized that I could at the end of the day rely on nobody but myself

>>4210127
u wot m8?

>>4210127
If by schizophrenia you're referring to melancholia, then you're pretty spot on.

>>4210148
Those two easily goes hand in hand.

this thread is really speaking to me. i've been gradually pulling away from atheism now for over three years. i look back on how i treated my body and my mind over the years, and i feel like i can see how much unneccessary suffering i put myself through. i like the comment about the dangers of putting pleasure on a pedastal, and it is something that i have been trying to stay aware of, and fight, for a while now. i have returned to my belief in the soul, something that vanished in my teens, and i feel much stronger for it. but, i am sstill hesitant over placing faith in a god. at the moment god is just a concept to me, i could probably exchange the word for instinct or something and it would retain the same meaning for me. whether or not i will ever believe in a god again, a defined god, be it christian or islamic, whatever, i do not know. but anyway, it is nice to see these discussions taking place.

>>4209789
>How can christians be afraid of hell if God forgives everyone?

He doesn't. God forgives the people that he chooses to forgive. "It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."

>>4209802
>But Jesus died for everyone's sins

No he did not. Christ lays down his life for his sheep alone (Jn. 10:15). Those who are not Christ's sheep do not believe (Jn. 10:26).

Catholics are the niggers of Christianity

>>4210554
negative hedonism and acestism can exist outside the realm of religious thought. What made you believe in the existence of a soul?

>>4207677
>believe in god

>>4209793
Are you implying a sinner can't be saved?

>all these hardcore christians preaching the repudiation of bodily pleasure on 4chan

I'm going to lay 10:1 that they've all got /d/ open in another tab.

>>4211415

A sinner is saved if he truly accepts salvation which entails an serious attempt to abate sin. You don't get to claim to accept christ and then fuck dudes in the ass constantly and without regret and think your claim to faith is legitimate.

>>4211518
But you can do it the other way around.
You can even start a christian, fall into debauchery, and ask forgiveness later on, like George dabalyou Bush.

>>4211422

the idea of a devout christian posting on 4chan is pretty amusing

>>4211518
>abate sin
Yeah that's really a great relief for the people you harmed to know that you made peace with God.

>>4211518
I bet Jesus was gay as fuck though and he totally had a gay foot fetish, look at how he got all freaky with Judas Iscariot's feet

And ofc Jesus def took hot man dick in his boypussy every night

>>4211528

Most sins aren't necessarily harmful to others.

>>4211537

Totally.

>>4211540
But those which are are still enabled by Christianism forgiveness.

>>4211563

What's your point, that we should promote cycles of revenge rather than forgiveness?

>>4211563
How are they enabled? It is the duty of the civil magistrate to punish evil-doers.

>>4211585
We're talking about moral obligation here.

>What's your point
My point is there is no such thing as being cleansed from the evil you did.

>>4211593
>My point is there is no such thing as being cleansed from the evil you did.

Clearly there is in the context of Christianity.

>>4211593
>We're talking about moral obligation here.

Moral obligation to do what? It is not the duty of the church to punish those who commit evil against others. It is the duty of the civil magistrate.

>>4211593
>My point is there is no such thing as being cleansed from the evil you did.

According to what? Our Creator may do with us as he pleases. If he will remit our sins, they are remitted; if he will retain our sins, they are retained.

>>4209682
>implying a homosexual relationship is equivalent to shoveling handfuls of toxic chemicals and unhealthy food into your body
>implying love between consenting adults is a "wasting pleasure"
>implying your natural biological functions are inherently evil
>implying this kind of thinking doesn't imply an immense level of self-hatred and repression
>implying you can present a single logical reason why "harvesting your nerves for pleasure" is inherently wrong without leaning on a book written by semi-literate desert people 4000 years ago
>implying gay people are necessarily effeminate
>implying effeminacy is necessarily a negative quality
>implying slippery slopes
>implying you are the property of your parents like a piece of fucking cattle
>implying individualism is equivalent to fucking patricide
>implying Aleister fucking Crowley is still spooky and/or relevant in any fucking way in the year 2013
>implying you're not a hypocrite for preaching about the evils of lust and pleasure-seeking on 4chan

>implying

>>4207726
But I like all parts of the Bible.

>>4211746

So I assume you don't eat shellfish, and don't interact with women for seven days following their menstrual period, and believe in the death penalty for children who mouth off to their parents.

>>4211812

i think you need to read the bible more closely

>>4211816

Help me understand, Mr. Biblical Scholar. Why are you free to ignore these laws of God?

>>4211816
>i like all parts of the bible
>except those

>>4211823
Google the tripartite division of the law.

This isn't an issue of being a "biblical scholar." You are simply ignorant of basic theology.

>>4211823
I mean, have you ever even looked to see what Christians have to say about the Law? Has the thought never crossed your mind that in two thousand years no one has dealt with this issue? But hey, why do that when you can parrot silly atheist rhetoric?

>>4211894
>Has the thought never crossed your mind that in two thousand years no one has dealt with this issue?

Whoops, I meant:

Has the thought never crossed your mind that in two thousand years someone may have dealt with this issue?

>>4211885

That's just a convoluted way of declaring which parts of the bible you're free to ignore. It has no basis in any actual divisions established in either Testament. But talk about ignorance -- I'm speaking to a person who must actually believe a prophet named Moses wrote the entire old Testament.

>>4211901
>That's just a convoluted way of declaring which parts of the bible you're free to ignore.

There is no "ignoring." It explaining the role of the judicial law and explaining how the ceremonial laws were fulfilled in Christ. I don't think you've ever studied this issue as you cannot seem to represent it properly.

>It has no basis in any actual divisions established in either Testament.

Yes it does. Theological divisions can be established either by Scripture or good and necessary consequences of Scripture.

>But talk about ignorance -- I'm speaking to a person who must actually believe a prophet named Moses wrote the entire old Testament.

Why would you assume something like that? Moses died (Deu. 34:5) before most of the events of the Old Testament even happened. That is ludicrous thing to say that anyone believes.

>>4211823
gentiles are given a fundamentally different contract with G-d, read Paul

this also relates to sexuality and homosexuality as a result ofc. Solomon had a lot of concubines and nobody thought it was that big of a deal, for example; the most he needed to do to atone for it was probably some sort of purification, but you can't discipline gentiles through physical hygiene because they're basically filthy anyway so sexuality becomes a matter of "spiritual" hygiene, which Paul enforces strictly.
as for your question "why are you free to ignore these laws," one interpretation of "Not to destroy but to fulfill" is that Christ provides a total cleansing, as it were, but even if it is a statement encouraging stricter adherence to orthodoxy (a dubious position), Christ is speaking to Jews when he says this

>>4211916
>Why would you assume something like that? Moses died (Deu. 34:5) before most of the events of the Old Testament even happened. That is ludicrous thing to say that anyone believes.

Presumably he means the Pentateuch or Torah, which comprises only the first five books of the OT. Conflating the Torah with the whole hog of the OT is a common mistake.

Good believers will assert that its author was Moses, but analysis of extant documents reveal plenty of internal contradictions in the Pentateuch and evidence for at least four sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

>>4211816
>>4211885
>>4211916
>2013
>all this casuistry

>>4211947
Here is a summary of the Christian view of the Law of God, with proof-texts. Hopefully this will put this issue to rest.

>>4211977

Before fanfiction, there were theologians.

Have you figured out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin yet?

>>4211981
>This is what Christians believe.
>No it isn't. Here is an explanation of what we do believe.
>LOL DIDN'T READ XD

Oh well.

>>4211984

You present this like it's the final word on the subject. The truth is that the discontinuity between Testaments remains a matter of great dispute and discussion in the Christian faith. Don't hound others for intellectual dishonesty if you can't even manage it yourself.

>>4211992
>You present this like it's the final word on the subject

It is correct in all of the statements it makes. The fact that other Christians may be confused has no bearing on this.

>>4212000

It's still not "what Christians believe," as you said. It's what a certain set of Christians believe, and others disagree vehemently. I wonder if you believe in "teaching the controversy" about evolution -- but no, you couldn't possibly be a hypocrite on top of being a liar.

>>4212007
>It's still not "what Christians believe," as you said.

My first statement that it is "the Christian view," is meant as, "it is the correct Christian view."

>It's what a certain set of Christians believe, and others disagree vehemently.

And they're wrong.

>I wonder if you believe in "teaching the controversy" about evolution -- but no, you couldn't possibly be a hypocrite on top of being a liar.

Evolution should only be taught as an error, as that is what it is.

>>4212007
the lack of a final solution doesn't excuse you from forming puffed up notions of scripture that are fundamentally untrue. if someone presents you with a better (or more meaningful) explanation than your own, it's intellectually dishonest not to accept it as such

"militant" atheists disturb me. I think it's clear that most Christians reflect an absurd image of God in being and in thought, but at least they reflect positively. it disturbs me that the British Humanist Association, during some of the worst crises to humanity in history (even in squishy liberal terms), collected £150,000 to run bus ads telling white people "stop worrying and enjoy your life."

>>4212024
>if someone presents you with a better (or more meaningful) explanation than your own

No real explanation has been offered. Just a bunch of extra-textual posturing and hot air used to retroactively justify the abrogation of scriptural laws deemed inconvenient.

>>4212045
If you're asking for the Scriptural justification, there is quite a bit there >>4211977 but you have refused to read it.

>>4212024

I'll take militant atheism any day of the week.

>>4212055
Except militant atheists have actually killed, imprisoned and repressed hundreds of thousands, if not millions of religious people.

>>4212045

Seriously read the pauline epistles. Two of them directly address the question of whether the old testament law must be followed by gentiles. The answer put simply is no, however there is also discussion on what is moral for a Christian. This is where Christian moralizing originates.

>>4212055
>militant christianist

>>4212096
Such things exist.

>>4212013
>Evolution should only be taught as an error, as that is what it is.
oh dear

do you think jesus approves of your arguing about this on 4chan

>>4212055
>christianist
>not just "christian"

what

>>4212121

It makes as much sense as the word "Islamist"

You could argue the word "Christianist" is an epithet designed to distinguish Christians who follow the word of god for righteous reasons from those who use the bible as an excuse for perpetuating whatever hatreds they are predisposed to. The latter treat "Christianity" as any other -ism, not a sacred connection to the divine will.

>>4212061
nice false equivalency.
They didn't do those things on the basis of their atheism.

>>4207660

Christian here. God doesn't send all fags to hell just because. Sins of the flesh are the lowest and least grave forms of sin. Fucking a nice piece of ass because your body makes you want to isn't much compared to far graver sins like rape, unfair murder, being a general asshole to everyone, etc.

The Christian homos I know either choose to not have sex at all, with anyone, or get over the fact that they are sinners like everyone else and move on, like any other Christian.

The whole message of Christ was that, on your own, you can't be saved, because nobody can be perfect as a human being. You need extra help. Sinning is a condition that you can't avoid as a human. Even saints were sinners. The saint generally feels like a greater sinner than the actual asshole.

For all you know, Christ was homosexual. It makes no difference to anything.

Christ always asked His disciples to consider the big picture and not get stuck on trivialities and literar-mindedness. You're of God, you can, to a degree, think like God. Which do you think is worse:

>long-term relationship with another homosexual

>long-term relationship with another heterosexual, but treating them badly, cheating, etc

There's no question in anyone's mind what the worse is. Deeds matter, as they are reflections of what your faith is. Being attracted to flesh makes us sinners, and it matters little whether that's hetero or homo. Being a slave to your body is never a good thing.

You are responsible for how you play your cards, but not for what cards you've been given. If you're a homosexual, God takes that in account as your unchosen condition. In the end, it comes down to remembering what God said, "The way you treated people in your life is the way you treated me."

Sometimes giving your partner a good dick in the ass is the best you can do for them. Sometimes it's rape. You can't fuck around with the details here. God doesn't. Everything counts.

Amen.

>>4212824

>they didn't kill religious people because of their being religious

Yes, they did. Religion was considered a negative thing to be eradicated, so they eradicated religious people.

Buddhist monks that had been religious since the Buddha's very own monkship have been exterminated solely because they were religious. Centuries of tradition since the Buddha himself destroyed by atheism.

>Christ asks His people to love and persevere
>"The inquisition! The Crusades! It's Jesus' fault!"

>Marx explicitly says violence is required to reform the system.
>"It's got nothing to do with anything! Atheism isn't part of it!"

The way people will limit their use of logic to fit their ways never ceases to amaze me.

>>4212824
Islamists and 'Christianists' didn't do their horrible shit on account of their theism either. They did it because of a certain belief system that includes theism, just like the Soviets and Maoists did those things because of a certain belief system that includes atheism and anti-religious beliefs.

It's perfectly equivalent, because it's just as fallacious.

>>4208268
wait. so some political council can overrule the word of God? good to know

>>4212851

This.

Crusades, inquisitions, etc, all these were done at a time where most Christians had zero access to the Bible and to the word of Christ. All they had were Priests who told them about it.

Most people couldn't even read in their own language. Had this been possible, you couldn't have had the same unity of action necessary for crusades or inquisitions. It's painfully obvious to anyone who can read the Bible that Christ would have been against all of these things, and only extreme hypocrisy allows one to say otherwise.

Communists/atheists don't have that very mitigating circumstance. Marx's words are clear, Stalin's words are clear, and the plan was there.

100 million people died within a single century due to state atheism. That's more than all religions put together since the dawn of time.

>>4212847
Show me a source that says anything about buddhists undergoing mass extermination under Mao, or, at least, anything that resembles the same way christians and muslims persecuted eachother, indigenous people, or jews.

Your strawman is a very poor one, as well. The Inquisition and the Crusades were specifically based on religious Dogma, fought over control of a largely empty desert with no practical value.

Marx never preached "We are not religious, and they are, so we must kill them.", he preached about class and economic barriers. Stalin saw religion as a tool and the church as a power base that could destabilize his own, which is why he repressed it. He then revived orthodoxy during world war II
"After Nazi Germany's attack on the Soviet Union in 1941, Joseph Stalin revived the Russian Orthodox Church to intensify patriotic support for the war effort. On September 4, 1943, Metropolitans Sergius, Alexy and Nikolay had a meeting with Stalin and received a permission to convene a council on September 8, 1943, which elected Sergius Patriarch of Moscow and all the Rus'...A new patriarch was elected, theological schools were opened, and thousands of churches began to function. The Moscow Theological Academy Seminary..., was re-opened."
>>4212851
Their belief system didn't include theism, it was based around theism.

>>4212858

There is no "word of God" that you can't discuss. Especially not in the New Testament.

Jews always discussed their word of God, it's called the Talmud. They were never literal about it. You can't ask of Christians to follow literally a book they got from another religion which didn't follow it literally, that would make zero sense. If you take something from someone, you take it whole, you don't cherry pick. You don't take just the texts and not the methodology to read them: you take both, no cherry-picking allowed. Taking the text alone and deciding it's meant to be read literally without discussion is cherry-picking.

Secondly, the fact that the New Testament gives you 4 versions of Christ's story should be enough to prove to you that there was never the intention of giving the "perfect and exact word of God". You can't claim that it's all 100% correct and accurate if you give 4 different versions of something. Christ's final sets of words? 4 different version. The people who put together the Bible were extremely smart and educated, they knew what they were doing. Nobody assumed it was "the word of God" and contained nothing to discuss or clarify. The Gospels are meant to be read and interpreted, and understood, and discussed. It's an intellectual venture, not a recipe.

>>4212872
>The Inquisition and the Crusades were specifically based on religious Dogma

Everything was under religious dogma back then. Religion and science weren't separate at the time. I'm sure you understand that.

As to Christians and Muslims back then, same thing. Your nation and your religion were one and the same. You're strawmanning like a faggot in heat.

Being a Christian in Europe in 1200 wasn't a choice but a condition. Being a communist in 1930 in Europe was. See? It's simple to show how your fallacies are dumb and silly.

As to evidence of Communist genocide of religious people, you may want to ask the Dalai Lama. I didn't know there was negationism of these massacres. You surprise me with your ignorance, anon.

>>4212859
Double counting the victims of WWII in the figures for Stalin and Hitler, even implying Hitler was an atheist etc.
Implying that people in communist countries ever stopped believing in their private lives, just because the state enforced their own religion of communism.
This picture is complete bullshit and posting it at all does you a disservice.

>>4212882
>Everything was under religious dogma
You're admitting, then, that the mass murders in the crusades and the inquisition were the direct result of theism?
>Being a christian in europe... not a choice but a condition. A communist in europe was
You're equating religion and ideology here. Nice ad hominem by the way

Again, as for the current and any past Dalai Lama's, don't forget that they're a destabilizing influence on the PRC's control over China, buddhists loyal to a free tibet and a free Dalai Lama are dangerous to the state. Of course they would exterminate them, but for a practical purpose, not because of their religion. I'm not condoning these massacres or anything, of course they still happened, but the motivating force behind them was never purely religious, unlike the crusades, which were meant to stop the spread of islam from asia to europe.

>>4212872
>Their belief system didn't include theism, it was based around theism.
You're missing the point. Theism isn't the deciding factor in their belief system that leads to the persecution of people with different beliefs as can be observed by the fact that there are peaceful theists. Whether or one does not belief in a God or gods has little to do with the persecution of people with different beliefs. You can point the finger at crusaders as well as the commies that killed thousands of Buddhists in Mongolia in the thirties.

>>4212905
>commies killing buddhist leaders is wholly practical
>europeans driving back arab invaders is wholly religious and irrational

w2c double standards?

>>4209326
Al Ghazali and all of Sufi Islam sayeth that this is so.


>bitch

>>4213052
>Al Ghazali

Ghazali was anti mystic, anti philosophy. Which is why he turned Islam into shit.

He went on and on about how faith alone via the Quran is the only way to God. He turned back to scriptural dogmatism for a reason. Go read his idiotic essays to actually understand him.

>>4213059
>Ghazali was anti mystic, anti philosophy. Which is why he turned Islam into shit.

Of course he started off as pro philosophy, pro mysticism, pro-aristotle, but then changed his position and devolved into lunacy^